I wrote a comment saying "This is sketchy as fuck" and was forced to delete it given the number of downvotes. Now that this has been debunked guess who was right..
Generally if you are polite and articulate WHY you are suspicious, people will cut you more slack.
I'm very reluctant to believe Craig Wright is Satoshi, but didn't have firm evidence (because he hadn't released info). Now that it appears the "signature of message" is just a signature from something else, it looks like he's actively a fraud, but I haven't validated it myself.
(The back-dated PGP key and alternate subkey from earlier was super sketch, but could have been someone else.)
You are right I should've elaborated. To me it reeked of conspiracy, it was odd for both Anderson and Matonis to come out with parallel blog posts endorsing this guy without a solid proof. He could've signed the genisis block and be done with it but no they had to go through all this trouble.
Cryptographic proofs speak for themselves, just release them to the public instead of relying on a centralized authority (Anderson and Matonis) to verify them, which is ironic.
If that was your entire comment, I would have downvoted you, not because I thought you were wrong, but because you didn't add any information and didn't contribute meaningful to the conversation.
Well, well, your critic was not really worded with a high level of eloquence, but in any case, it's not like the bitcoin community is known for taking any kind of critic anyway. The downvote button always ready for those that don't follow the true path of Crypto and welcome Bitcoin in their hearts as the true mankind savior.
